General Pharmaceutical Council determination — substantive hearing
GPhC imposed three-month suspension on Shahid Hussain after online prescribing findings
The committee rejected alleged lack of integrity and recognised substantial remediation, but found incomplete insight. It imposed suspension with review following online prescribing and governance failings.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 16 January 2025 · Updated 22 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 3 months
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.
Concerning Shahid Hussain, pharmacist (General Pharmaceutical Council 2075141).
Decision date: 16 January 2025 · Hearing started 7 January 2025 and ended 16 January 2025
This sanction period has elapsed.
In plain English
The GPhC committee suspended Shahid Hussain for three months with review in January 2025 following online prescribing and governance failings. It rejected an allegation that his dispensing lacked integrity and found no evidence of actual harm from his prescribing. The committee recognised substantial remediation and strong current clinical practice, but found incomplete insight into why the failings occurred. An interim suspension covered the appeal period.
Charges
The allegations concerned online prescribing and dispensing work for UK Meds during September 2021 to March 2022, including inadequate clinical information, safeguards, due diligence, risk assessment and governance. A separate allegation that dispensing placed financial gain above patient interests was not proved; two particulars about second-pharmacist checks and prescription-record retention were withdrawn.
Findings
The committee found serious misconduct and impaired fitness to practise arising from unsafe online prescribing and governance failings. It rejected the alleged lack of integrity in dispensing and did not find the dispensing service transactional. It found no evidence of actual patient harm from the registrant's prescribing, recognised substantial remediation and strong current clinical practice, but found incomplete insight into why the failings arose. It imposed three months' suspension with review and an interim suspension during the appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
● There is no evidence that any patient actually suffered harm as a result of the Registrant’s prescribing ● There is no previous Fitness to Practise history for the Registrant ● The Registrant has been in full time practice for almost three years since the misconduct without any further concerns ● There is a low risk of repetition regarding online prescribing ● The Registrant is developing his insight ● The Committee has seen a multitude of positive testimonials (over 50 pages) from health professionals, colleagues and patients. He is very well thought of in the community, and currently runs two pharmacies, providing valuable services to the public.
Aggravating factors
● The misconduct took place in the workplace, and over a period of approximately five to six months ● The case involved a substantial number of transactions (36,312 prescriptions issued, of which over 5,000 were high risk, and 54,770 prescriptions dispensed) ● The prescriptions related to many thousands of patients ● The prescribing was carried out in a transactional manner ● There was a serious risk to patient safety, including the risks of overdose and addiction ● This case involved a significant breach of many of the professional standards ● The Registrant was an experienced pharmacist at the time of the misconduct ● The Registrant was also the pharmacy owner and SI, so had the overall responsibility for the safe and effective running of the Pharmacy. He was in a position of trust and power.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published General Pharmaceutical Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.